1.

The right of a consumer who has entered into a credit agreement to repay that loan early (with a reduction in the interest and the costs for the remaining duration of the agreement) has been recognised in EU legislation for many years. ( 2 )

2.

That right applies both to consumer credit in general (Directive 2008/48/EC) ( 3 ) and, specifically, to credit provided to consumers for residential immovable property (Directive 2014/17/EU). ( 4 )

3.

The Court of Justice has ruled on the legal consequences of early repayment of consumer credit in the judgment of 11 September 2019, ( 5 ) in response to a reference for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/48. ( 6 )

4.

It is now asked to interpret Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17 in connection with a pre-formulated (standard) term included by a particular bank in its mortgage-secured loan agreements. The referring court asks, specifically, if it must follow the rule established in Lexitor.

5.

Article 3(g) provides that:

‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:

6.

Pursuant to Article 16(1):

‘The consumer shall be entitled at any time to discharge fully or partially his obligations under a credit agreement. In such cases, he shall be entitled to a reduction in the total cost of the credit, such reduction consisting of the interest and the costs for the remaining duration of the contract.’

7.

Recitals 19, 50 and 66 are particularly relevant to this case.

8.

Article 4 includes the following definitions for the purposes of this directive:

‘…

(13)   “Total cost of the credit to the consumer” means the total cost of the credit to the consumer as defined in point (g) of Article 3 of Directive 2008/48/EC including the cost of valuation of property where such valuation is necessary to obtain the credit but excluding registration fees for the transfer of ownership of the immovable property. It excludes any charges payable by the consumer for non-compliance with the commitments laid down in the credit agreement.

…

(15)   “Annual percentage rate of charge” (APRC) means the total cost of the credit to the consumer, expressed as an annual percentage of the total amount of credit, where applicable, including the costs referred to in Article 17(2) and equates, on an annual basis, to the present value of all future or existing commitments (drawdowns, repayments and charges) agreed by the creditor and the consumer.

….’

9.

Article 25 provides as follows:

‘1.   Member States shall ensure that the consumer has a right to discharge fully or partially his obligations under a credit agreement prior to the expiry of that agreement. In such cases, the consumer shall be entitled to a reduction in the total cost of the credit to the consumer, such reduction consisting of the interest and the costs for the remaining duration of the contract.

2.   Member States may provide that the exercise of the right referred to in paragraph 1 is subject to certain conditions. Such conditions may include time limitations on the exercise of the right, a different treatment depending on the type of the borrowing rate or on the moment the consumer exercises the right, or restrictions with regard to the circumstances under which the right may be exercised.

3.   Member States may provide that the creditor is entitled to fair and objective compensation, where justified, for possible costs directly linked to the early repayment but shall not impose a sanction on the consumer. In that regard, the compensation shall not exceed the financial loss of the creditor. Subject to those conditions Member States may provide that the compensation may not exceed a certain level or be allowed only for a certain period of time.

…

5.   Where the early repayment falls within a period for which the borrowing rate is fixed Member States may provide that the exercise of the right referred to in paragraph 1 is subject to the existence of a legitimate interest on the part of the consumer.’

10.

In the version in force until 31 December 2020, Paragraph 20 of the Hypothekar- und Immobilienkreditgesetz (Law on mortgage and immovable property loans), ( 7 ) entitled ‘Early repayment’, provided as follows:

‘1.   The borrower shall have the right to choose at any time to repay the amount of credit, either fully or partially, prior to the expiry of the agreed term. The early repayment of the entire amount of credit, together with interest, results in termination of the credit agreement. In the event of early repayment of the amount of credit, the amount of interest to be paid by the borrower decreases proportionally to the reduced receivable and, where appropriate, proportionally to the reduced term of the agreement; costs that are dependent on the duration of the agreement decrease proportionally.’

11.

In its credit agreements secured by a mortgage directed at consumers, UniCredit Bank Austria AG (‘UniCredit’) uses standard terms governing the right to repay the loan early, with a reduction in the interest payable and the costs that are dependent on the duration of the agreement.

12.

The agreements include the following standard term: ‘It is pointed out that the processing costs that are not dependent on the duration of the agreement will not be reimbursed (even on a pro-rata basis)’.

13.

The Verein für Konsumenteninformation (‘VKI’) is a consumer protection association which brought an action against UniCredit in the Handelsgericht Wien (Commercial Court, Vienna, Austria), seeking an order for it to cease using the above term.

14.

The court of first instance dismissed the action. However, the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Higher Regional Court, Vienna, Austria) upheld the appeal lodged by VKI and granted the forms of order sought in the application.

15.

The Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) is asked to rule on the appeal lodged against the decision of the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Higher Regional Court, Vienna) by Unicredit, by which UniCredit seeks to have the judgment at first instance reinstated. Before doing so, it has referred the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘Is Article 25(1) of Directive [2014/17] to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that provides for the sum of interest to be paid by the borrower and the costs that are dependent on the duration of the agreement to be proportionally reduced in the event that the borrower exercises the right to repay the amount of credit, either fully or partially, prior to the expiry of the agreed term, with no corresponding rule for costs that are not dependent on the duration of the agreement?’

16.

The request for a preliminary ruling was lodged with the Court on 9 September 2021.

17.

Written observations were submitted by VKI, UniCredit, the Italian Government and the European Commission.

18.

A hearing was held on 7 July 2022, in which VKI, UniCredit, the German Government, the Italian Government and the Commission intervened.

19.

The first consumer credit directive dates from 1987. Credit agreements intended for the purpose of acquiring or retaining property rights in land or in an existing or projected building, or renovating or improving a building, were excluded from its scope. Only some of its provisions applied to credit agreements secured by a mortgage on immovable property which, by way of exception, were not already excluded by virtue of that provision.

20.

Nearly 30 years later, Directive 2014/17 establishes a (partial) common regulatory framework for consumer credit agreements secured by a mortgage or other comparable security over residential immovable property.

21.

The separate regulation of the latter agreements is usually explained by reference to the differences between the markets for consumer credit and for home purchase or renovations loans. Attention is also drawn to the differences between the technical features of each type of loan and the security usually provided in each case.

22.

In spite of those differences, in drafting several of the provisions in Directive 2014/17 the legislature has looked to Directive 2008/48. In some cases the later directive simply refers to the earlier one, without further comment, or introduces additional elements and clarification. ( 8 )

23.

One aspect common to both directives, and already present in Directive 87/102, is the consumer’s right to repay the loan early. In all three instruments, that right is accompanied by the right to a reduction in the total cost of the credit which:

24.

The Court has ruled on the concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ in the field of consumer credit. ( 9 ) As I have already stated, in Lexitor it gave an interpretation of the reduction in that cost resulting from the early discharge of obligations under a credit agreement, as provided for by Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/48.

25.

In order to answer the question referred by the referring court, it is first necessary to consider the concepts of ‘total cost of the credit’ ( 10 ) and ‘reduction in the total cost’ ( 11 ) in Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17.

26.

Before embarking on that analysis, I shall make two observations on the relevance of Directive 2008/48 to this case:

27.

In so far as the exercise of the right to early repayment entails a corresponding reduction in the total cost of the credit to the consumer, it is necessary to determine what items (in addition to interest) are included in that concept.

28.

The expression ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ is defined in Article 4(13) of Directive 2014/17 by reference to Directive 2008/48, with some additional provisos that do not alter the basic definition. ( 16 )

29.

Literally, the total cost of a mortgage credit includes all costs accrued in respect of that credit (other than those excluded by the legislature) which satisfy two conditions: they are mandatory on the consumer, and they are (or should be) known to the creditor. ( 17 )

30.

The provision cites as typical examples of those costs ‘interest, commissions, taxes’, and ‘costs in respect of ancillary services relating to the credit agreement, in particular insurance premiums … if, in addition, the conclusion of a service contract is compulsory in order to obtain the credit or to obtain it on the terms and conditions marketed’. Fees for credit intermediaries and the costs of property valuation for a mortgage ( 18 ) may also be included in the total cost.

31.

It is clear from this list that mandatory costs are not necessarily costs unilaterally imposed by the creditor in order to increase its profits: the total cost of the credit may include fees to organisations or individuals other than the parties to the agreement, ( 19 ) and may cover a wide range of items.

32.

From the literal perspective under consideration here, the total cost of the credit therefore includes the cost of ancillary services, subject to the same requirements that they must be mandatory for the consumer and known to the creditor. ( 20 )

33.

Examples given of this type of costs are life insurance or fire insurance premiums; ( 21 ) the valuation costs for the property to be mortgaged; ( 22 ) the costs of opening and maintaining an account and of using a means of payment for transactions and drawdowns on that account; and other costs relating to payment transactions. ( 23 )

34.

While the following costs could, in theory, be classed as falling within the concept of the total cost of the credit to the consumer, the legislature has expressly decided that they are not included in the calculation:

35.

Applying that typology of items to be included in (or excluded from) the concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ to the items listed by the referring court, I consider that, for the purposes of Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17, that concept:

36.

An analysis of the evolution of the concept of the ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ in the legislative work undertaken prior to the adoption of Directive 2014/17 ( 28 ) confirms that, of the items listed by the referring court, mention was made of ‘mortgage registration fees’.

37.

On this point, the Commission proposal for the (future) Mortgage Credit Directive simply referred to Directive 2008/48. ( 29 )

38.

The solution was explained as being the result of weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of the options under consideration for calculating the APRC. ( 30 ) The fact that a parallel text to the existing text (Directive 2008/48) would assist consumer understanding and help them to compare credits was also taken into account. ( 31 )

39.

The concept was subsequently refined, with components being added or removed, but the link to Article 3 of Directive 2008/48 remained.

40.

In this context, I consider it relevant that the first report by the European Parliament on the proposed Mortgage Credit Directive explicitly excluded ‘registration fees for the mortgage or another comparable security’. ( 32 )

41.

However, the amendments that were adopted include one which provided that ‘the total cost of the credit to the consumer should exclude costs that the consumer pays in relation to the purchase of the immovable property or land, such as associated taxes and notarial costs or the costs of land registration’ ( 33 ) (italics added).

42.

There is no record of any other discussion of the inclusion of ‘mortgage registration costs’ or the exclusion of the costs relating to the purchase of the property. ( 34 )

43.

The concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ in Directive 2014/17 is a functional one, as it is in Directive 2008/48. It is, above all, a means of establishing two concepts:

44.

The Court has attributed the breadth of this concept to the aim of providing broad consumer protection, and has interpreted it accordingly. ( 37 ) That protection is provided by supplying consumers with general information – particularly pre-contractual information – to enable them (ideally) to choose the credit product that is right for their personal situation and their needs. That is, in essence, the principal purpose of the concept of ‘total cost of the credit’.

45.

In order to select the formula which is best for them, consumers must be able to compare products on offer in both domestic and cross-border markets. The consumer protection offered by Directives 2008/48 and 2014/17 is part of the overall objective of creating an internal market for credit. ( 38 ) The APRC, which sets out the price (total cost) of the credit on the basis of a mathematical formula which is the same across the European Union, is a crucial part of that comparison.

46.

There is, however, a certain tension between the objective of giving consumers the best information and doing so in a way which enables them to compare creditors’ products within a reasonable period of time.

47.

Intuitively, the more information (on costs additional to interest) that is included in the APRC, and the less effort consumers have to devote to identifying other credit-related costs for themselves, the better it is for consumers – particularly where a different legal system is involved (since legal systems tend to be restricted to domestic systems).

48.

That is why the concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ includes a wide range of costs connected with the credit transaction. It is easier for creditors to obtain that information than it is for consumers, although the process is not cost-free even for creditors. ( 39 )

49.

At the same time, the inclusion in the APRC calculation of components which are regulated at national level, and therefore vary widely, affects the comparability of the products on offer. ( 40 ) Ultimately, it has a negative impact on cross-border activity by creditors and on attracting customers from other Member States.

50.

In my view, the legislature has opted for a solution which seeks to reconcile the various concerns through a combination of different elements:

51.

In my view, this ensures that the average consumer has the information required to reach a decision on the mortgage credit agreement, having compared products on the basis of the APRC. ( 44 ) The average consumer will also know that there may be additional costs – whether ones which belong in the APRC but are not known to the lender, or ones which are not part of the total cost of the credit – to which he or she has been alerted.

52.

In the light of the above, in my view the reply to the referring court on whether or not the items it lists are part of the total cost of the credit to the consumer, within the meaning of Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17, could be that:

53.

The referring court wishes to know whether, where the borrower exercises the right to repay the amount of credit, either fully or partially, prior to the expiry of the agreed term, the proportional reduction applies only to the interest payable and the costs that are dependent on the duration of the agreement, or whether it also applies to costs that are not dependent on the duration of the agreement.

54.

A debtor who repays the credit early is, indeed, entitled to a reduction in the total cost of that credit. According to Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17, the reduction applies to ‘the interest and the costs for the remaining duration of the contract’. ( 45 )

55.

In so far as Article 25(1) does not distinguish between the various categories of costs, it might seem that the reduction applies to any sum included in the total cost of the credit (which satisfies the temporal criterion noted below). Without prejudice to my observations below, ( 46 ) my view, however, is that the reduction does not apply indiscriminately to every single one of the items which, together, indicate to the consumer the total cost of the credit before the agreement is entered into.

56.

Directive 2014/17 leaves some aspects of the early repayment regime open (as options for Member States). ( 47 ) However, the actual existence of the right to repay all or part of the credit prior to the expiry of the agreed term is not a matter for each national legislature, neither are the consequences of the exercise of that right (namely, the reduction in the total cost of the credit). ( 48 )

57.

It is not, therefore, for Member States to determine which cost items are to be reduced. Thus, the question of ‘what’ is to be reduced requires a uniform interpretation, as with any other concept which enjoys autonomy under EU law.

58.

As I noted earlier, Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17 does not specify the items (from among those which make up the total cost of the credit) to which the reduction is to apply. ( 49 ) All that can be inferred with certainty from the text is that the reduction will not apply to items that are not included in that cost. ( 50 )

59.

In any event, the provision includes a temporal stipulation which I consider significant: the interest and costs which are to be reduced in the event of early repayment of the credit are those ‘for the remaining duration of the contract’.

60.

The fact that there is a link between the items to be reduced and the remaining duration of the contract seems to me to indicate that the items to be reduced reflect amounts owed for services which have not been performed by the time of the early repayment and which will not now occur. ( 51 )

61.

That logic is readily grasped in relation to the interest on the credit. Early repayment of the capital (the principal of the debt) implies, eo ipso, that from that date no more interest will be payable on that sum. The reduction in the interest that has not accrued by the time of the early repayment is not disputed, and I see no reason why the provision should be interpreted differently in the case of the other costs.

62.

The literal element seems to me to be key: Article 25 refers only to costs that relate to the period of time after the right to repayment has been exercised (‘the remaining duration’). Nevertheless, in so far as, in most language versions, Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17 is the same as Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/48, and the Court did not find the literal argument convincing in respect of the latter, ( 52 ) I realise that it may be similarly unconvinced by my interpretation now.

63.

To address that eventuality, I shall analyse the provision in its context and in the light of its purpose. ( 53 )

64.

Recognition of the right to early repayment in Directive 2014/17 reflects – as does the entire directive – a desire to foster the creation of an internal market in credit agreements relating to residential immovable property.

65.

In that context, the right to early repayment pursues a specific objective, which recital 66 of Directive 2014/17 describes by reference to promoting competition, the free movement of citizens and financial stability. The advantages to consumers are treated as merely secondary, and are described in terms of enabling consumers to change products in order to find the one which best meets their needs at any given time.

66.

The legislature provides for the right to early repayment to be subject to conditions. ( 54 ) It also provides for possible compensation to the creditor, which may, in some cases, be large enough to act as a deterrent to the consumer. ( 55 )

67.

It can be inferred from that regulatory regime that the right to early repayment of the credit is not intended to correct asymmetries in an unequal relationship, but rather to provide flexibility in a long-term contract by enabling the debtor to pay off the obligation before the expiry of the agreed term, without needing to give or prove any reason. ( 56 )

68.

Directive 2014/17 does not specify the rationale for the reduction established by Article 25(1) as a corollary to the right to early repayment. That fact, together with the absence of any discussion during the course of the travaux préparatoires, justifies the assertion that that readjustment is seen as a natural consequence of the early repayment, which also removes or (in the case of partial early repayment) reduces the risk of default for the other party. Moreover, if the borrower were required to pay the unaccrued interest and the other outstanding costs, this would lead to the unjust enrichment of the creditor, which is likewise released (albeit by a unilateral decision of the other party) from its reciprocal contractual obligation. ( 57 )

69.

I do not believe, however, that the aim of the reduction established in Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17 is to place the consumer in the situation in which he or she would have been if the credit had originally been granted for a shorter period or were for a smaller sum. ( 58 ) The right to early repayment does not transform the original credit agreement into an agreement that it could have been, but rather enables it to be adapted to circumstances that have changed. ( 59 )

70.

Those considerations support my belief, already voiced in my analysis of the literal interpretation of the provision, that the reduction applies only to the sums which the consumer would have to pay for services yet to be provided in performance of the agreement.

71.

I have no doubt that a different interpretation would be more favourable to the consumer. However, just as consumers are not to be penalised for paying off the debt early, ( 60 ) I do not believe that, in order to give them the protection intended by Directive 2014/17, it is necessary to extend the right to a reduction to the point of rewarding consumers ( 61 ) for a change which they impose on the other party. ( 62 )

72.

For the same reasons, my view also applies to payments made to third parties in respect of taxes, administrative fees or professional services, such as property valuation or intermediation activities. ( 63 )

73.

I do not dispute that the costs paid to third parties form part of the total cost of the credit; otherwise, consumers would not receive all the information they need in order to choose between the products offered by the different creditors.

74.

However, I disagree that this means that the right to a reduction enshrined in Article 25 of Directive 2014/17 applies to costs other than the cost of services to be performed by the creditor which have yet to be provided at the time of the early repayment.

75.

Some of those costs are payments for one-off services which pave the way for the future contractual relationship (intermediation). Others help to fund public expenditure (taxes) or are payment for activities or services provided by the public administration which are in the interest not only of the parties but of society as a whole and the operation of the legal system (mortgage register). Once again, the fact that those costs must be included in order for consumers to know the total ‘price’ of the credit, for the purposes of Article 4(13) of Directive 2014/17, irrespective of whether payment is made directly to the end recipient or via the creditor, does not mean that they form part of the costs which are to be reduced in the event of early repayment.

76.

I can find no objective reason why the proportional reduction in costs established by Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17 should apply to payments other than for services provided by the creditor, since they are services which the creditor neither performs nor receives payment for. ( 64 ) I am even more convinced of this where the costs are imposed on the borrower by law; if the right to a reduction were to apply to those components of the total cost of the credit, the result would be that the public administration body responsible for revenue collection or for maintaining registers, which is not party to the bilateral relationship between the creditor and the borrower, would be required to make a proportional repayment of those sums.

77.

In my opinion, Lexitor does not change the view I have set out above. I believe that the Court reached the decision it did based on primarily pragmatic considerations, which are reflected in the arguments set out in paragraphs 31 to 33 of the judgment. There is also the consideration concerning a possible ‘disproportionate disadvantage’ to the creditor, whose interests underlie the provision for the creditor to receive compensation. ( 65 )

78.

Those arguments might make sense in the situation under examination in that case, and could, at most, be generalised to apply to any consumer credit. They cannot, in my view, be applied to mortgage credit.

79.

In the first place, with regard to the ease or difficulty in applying the reduction, it should be recalled that the ESIS (use of which is mandatory and which cannot be amended by either Member States or creditors) contains a breakdown of the information on the mortgage credit which must be provided to consumers at the pre-contractual stage. In particular, it classifies the costs on the basis of whether or not they are regular payments: this enables consumers, or the courts, to identify some costs which can be reduced. ( 66 )

80.

In the second place, there is a fundamental difference between Directives 2008/48 and 2014/17 as regards the creditor’s right to be compensated for costs directly arising from early repayment: the former establishes that right in the directive itself; the latter, which applies in these proceedings, does not.

81.

That key difference between Directives 2008/48 and 2014/17 does not, however, prevent the identification of a conceptual relationship between a ‘reduction’ for the consumer and ‘compensation’ for the creditor. ( 67 )

82.

The absence of harmonised regulation of the right to compensation in Directive 2014/17 is probably an indication of the difficulty in agreeing common rules and is, ultimately, a consequence of the diversity in mortgage funding mechanisms and the range of products available, ( 68 ) which reflect the particular characteristics of mortgage financial markets in the Member States.

83.

The discretion afforded to Member States over whether or not to introduce compensation in mortgage credits may affect the practices of some Member States, ( 69 ) eliminating the balancing factor which led the Court to rule as it did in Lexitor. That is why, I repeat, one cannot simply extrapolate from that judgment in order to apply it to mortgage credits.

84.

Accepting the view in Lexitor should not lead inevitably to the conclusion that the reduction inherent in early repayment extends to the costs of the mortgage credit which are intended to provide payment to a third party.

85.

Aside from the fact that, as I have already noted, Lexitor did not address those costs, in the case of mortgage credits it is not the creditor (in this case, the bank) which receives those sums, determines the amount of the payments, profits from them, or is able to manipulate them.

86.

I cannot, therefore, see any reason why sums paid to third parties should be treated in the same way as the sums that were examined in Lexitor.

87.

While not decisive, I believe that the work currently in hand to revise Directive 2008/48 supports my view. Both the Commission’s proposal ( 70 ) and the general approach set out by the Council ( 71 ) clarify that the reduction will apply to the interest and costs imposed by the creditor on the consumer. In my view, the proposal is equally applicable to mortgage credits.

88.

It is true that a situation such as that described by VKI may occur: in order to make its offer more attractive to the consumer, the creditor designs the agreement in such a way that, at first sight, third-party costs are paid by the creditor, which then uses its room for manoeuvre in the invoicing process in order covertly to charge the costs to the borrower. ( 72 )

89.

However, Lexitor cannot be relied on to put a stop to this practice either – a practice which is fraudulent not only from the point of view of each individual consumer, but also from the perspective of preventing distortion to competition. The reduction which, under the terms of Lexitor, applies to all costs paid to the creditor applies pro rata, based on the time remaining on the contract at the point of repayment. In other words, on its own, the Lexitor solution will never ensure that the consumer recovers the full amount which was, in theory, to be paid by the creditor but which was in the end passed on to the consumer.

90.

In my view, the way to halt those abuses should be through the means established in Article 41 of Directive 2014/17: Member States must ensure that the protection which the directive provides to the consumer cannot be evaded ‘as a result of the way in which agreements are formulated’.

91.

To summarise, if Lexitor were considered to apply to mortgage credits, Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17 would preclude national legislation which limits the proportional reduction linked to early repayment of the credit to the costs that are dependent on the duration of the agreement. However, even in those circumstances (where the Lexitor solution is applied to mortgage credits), the reduction would apply only to the costs which provide payment to the creditor, that is, costs that are not paid to third parties.

92.

If the Court accepts my argument, there would be no need to accede to the request from the Italian Government regarding a possible limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment. Moreover, in my view, such a limitation would not be appropriate, because it has not been shown that the conditions required by the case-law of the Court in order for a limitation to apply (in particular the requirement for serious economic repercussions) have been satisfied. ( 73 )

93.

In the light of the considerations set out above, I propose the following reply to the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria):

Primary response:

Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 is to be interpreted as meaning that, where the borrower exercises the right to repay the amount of credit, either fully or partially, prior to the expiry of the agreed term, the proportional reduction applies only to the sum of interest to be paid by the borrower and to the costs that are dependent on the duration of the agreement.

Alternative response:

Article 25(1) of Directive 2014/17 is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, where the borrower exercises the right to repay the amount of credit, either fully or partially, prior to the expiry of the agreed term, the reduction in interest and in the total cost of the credit applies only to the costs that are dependent on the duration of the agreement. However, it would not preclude national legislation which restricted that reduction to the costs which, irrespective of the duration of the agreement, provide payment to the creditor, excluding costs owed to third parties.